Does False Live Stack with Itself

[TheGogmagog]

To misquote Thanee: I think a more direct example is the spell he is asking about.

Overlapping:

Fireball 25 damage
------------------------>
False Life 5
---->
False Life 10
--------->
Remaining Damage 15
--------->-------------->

Stacking:

Fireball 25 damage
------------------------>
False Life 5
---->
False Life 10
---->--------->
Remaining Damage 10
-------------->--------->



Bye
Thanee
Edited Text in Red

I think Peter Gibbons's argument has some merit, it seems odd to deduct damage from both spells. But to deduct from one, until it's less powerful, then deduct from the other is the same as Stacking. Casting false life or protection from energy multiple times on the same target seems quite broken if they are allowed to stack.

I'm curious what level immunity to energy damage or immunity to physical damage spells would be, and if multiple spells of lower level equate to the higher level. The multiple lower level spells wouldn't be total immunity, but would approach it for a few rounds.

 

[ARandomGod]

I've seen this argued several times... With several different interpretations.

The basic agreement is that it indeed does overlap, by RAW. There is some debate as to how they overlap. And, of course, at that point there is no guide and it could be any of the myriad of interpretations.

Of course, that leads to the question of power. Is it overpowered to allow it to “stack”, as it were? I’ve played in a number of games with it interpreted as virtually stacking, and I can confirm that it’s not overpowered, not even at caster level ten (where it’s d10+10 HP per casting). At that level it basically negates one attack from a fighter of a similar level. … And not always the entire attack (although sometimes two attacks, depending on the fighter). In general a spellcaster is going to be better off memorizing an attack spell instead of a defensive spell such as this.

There is an exception. That being various spell point systems. In a spell point system you can cast and recast this spell a large number of times. Unless the system is designed to cost more for a “tenth” level casting of this spell as opposed to a third (baseline) level casting of the spell it’s quite overpowered.

However in the normal system even complete stacking isn’t overpowered at all. Like I said, it negates ½ to 2 attacks from a similar fighter. And a spellcaster who’s wasting spells on that as opposed to spending them on scorching ray or some other spell is either making a mistake or preparing for a very specific eventuality (or just an interesting character style).

 

[ARandomGod]

Of course, that leads to the question of power. Is it overpowered to allow it to “stack”, as it were? I’ve played in a number of games with it interpreted as virtually stacking, and I can confirm that it’s not overpowered, not even at caster level ten (where it’s d10+10 HP per casting). At that level it basically negates one attack from a fighter of a similar level. … And not always the entire attack (although sometimes two attacks, depending on the fighter). In general a spellcaster is going to be better off memorizing an attack spell instead of a defensive spell such as this.

Of course, at this point you have to look at the magic level of the game. I'm talking about a "normal" DMG base magic level game. If you're playing in an extremely low magic campaign this spell (and many other spells) *should* be 'nerfed', and shouldn't be allowed to stack. After alll, there won't BE a similiarly leveled fighter, because they won't have the needed equipment to compete. And in a high magic campaign the spell becomes even more trivial, as the fighters will be cutting through things even faster. So it's all relative, of course.